if you were a minor at that time on becoming major you could have applied . in such a case delay would have been condoned .
Uttaranchal High Court
Rajendra Ram vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) 81/2004
State of Uttaranchal & Others
Sri Vinod Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3rd July, 2008
Hon'ble P.C. Verma, J.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.10.2003, Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was denied the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on the ground of delay. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
2. Petitioner's father late Sri Hari Ram was working as Beldar in respondent department, who died in harness on 28.12.1988. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. His date of birth is 1.7.1984. The mother of the petitioner died before the death of his father. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner vide his application dated 8.7.2002 applied for his appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Thereafter, the 2
respondent no. 3/Executive Engineer, PWD Construction Division, Ranikhet, Almora vide his letters dated 25.9.2002 and 3.12.2002 (Annexure 3 & 4 to the writ petition) asked the petitioner to submit the necessary documents in order to process his request for compassionate appointment. The petitioner furnished the required documents in compliance of the aforesaid letters. But the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's application was belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit.
3. Undisputedly the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. There was no occasion for the mother of the petitioner to move application for compassionate appointment as she expired even before the death of her husband. Immediately after attaining the age of majority, application dated 8.7.2002 was moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. But the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected only on one ground that his application for appointment was belated one. Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 contains provision empowering the State Government/Appointing Authority to condone the delay in cases where the authority is satisfied. Here in the present case, the delay for not making application by the petitioner within the prescribed time was due to underage and after attaining the age of majority, the application was made by the petitioner. It was sufficient reason to condone the delay. 3
4. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) is set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observation/direction. No order as to costs.
(P.C. Verma, J.)